3DS Forum

Those who say that graphics doesn't matter are hypocrites. Yes, it does matter, let's admit the painful truth. The only thing that's true about graphics is that it can never be a factor when choosing games. You always look for quality. Not what it can offer visually.

I admit I used to say graphics dont matter but that was when I had all nintendo consoles once I got ps3. I think to me all of the people who say graphics dont matter are fanboys of the nintendo type even my freind once I got it I still go over to his house to play his wii all the time (I dont own one wating for wii 2) but he think just cause I lkie good graphics that Im some sony freak and he think that all I care about. In fact he still brings it up almost everytime I see him thouhg he wanted one beofre now he says he never getting one and hraphics are all I think about when its not. Hes realy the reason why I now think people like him or nintenbdo fanboys theyve brainwashed themselfs in thinking graphics dont matter when they realy ad alot to game.

@blink83Graphics do add more to a Game,But If the game isn't any Fun, then you just have a pretty picture.

I have buy most games base on Graphics, intill I learn the hard way about "How a game is play, and not how it looked "

But games like Fable and Mass Effect have great Graphics and Gameplay, but after playing the Game for a long time, you get used to the Graphics and they don't Wow you any more, but what makes you come back for more is it Gameplay.

I agree with those that say gameplay is most important (the continued popularity of retro classics like Pac-Man and SMB is a testament to that) but graphics do add something to the game. If there are two games in a series that are almost identical in gameplay, I am naturally more drawn to the one that looks better. I'm not overly demanding where graphics are concerned, but I appreciate what they bring to the table when done right.

And what's this Final Fantasy VII game everyone keeps talking about? I watched some YouTube videos of a game with this name, but I think they mixed up the videos with Lego Final Fantasy.

Moco LocoIf you find yourself spiritually drifting (as I was for far too many years), remember that Jesus can and will walk across the water to reach you and bring you back to shore.

I think graphics are great but they aren't necessary. The only problem with them is that they add to more work on the developer which leads to either later release dates or less gameplay(usually it's the first)

btw blink83 you're right he's kind of annoying that way. a standard has been set for people with PS3's by other fanboys that you just care about graphics. which we can't deny that there are people and companies who solely believe in graphics but it's an unfair stereotype.

I think the whole underlying issue in this thread is that you often HEAR more about a new game's (and especially a new system's) graphical capabilities than about "gameplay." It's a very easy metric to measure a game or system technically. What resolution is it? How many polygons per second? Frames per second? etc. It's a bit harder to measure objectively how much smarter the AI is, how much more realistic the physics are, or other factors that come with more processing power.

It also partially depends on the genre, and you don't necessarily get BETTER gameplay with better graphics but you do get more variety. For example, many would argue SMB3 is as good or better than NSMBWii, though the graphics on NSMB are, from a technical standpoint, better (I won't get into a debate on art style here). On the other hand, could a game like Kirby's Epic Yarn or Little Big Planet be done on an SNES? There's no way you could get the sort of detailing on the textures to make that art style work. Also, I think it would be very difficult to manipulate the environments in the way those games do (imagine pulling a box in Sonic the Hedgehog vs. LBP - which has more interesting physics?) without the graphics capability. 2D platforming is probably one of the genres where graphics matter LEAST, yet with more power for graphics new worlds are opened up. Another example is Mario Galaxy. That couldn't be done on Nintendo 64, because it wouldn't be able to process enough polygons to make playing on spherical planets feasible. Mario 64 is STILL an outstanding game, but without improvement in technology and graphics capabilities, the gaming world would not have been able to move past it.

tl;dr Graphics and gameplay are intertwined, and advancement in graphics technology makes more types of games possible, even if it doesn't make said games "better" per se.

When the NES came out the graphics were so stunning at the time compared to the competition it was like going from a PS1 to a PS3.

When Nintendo entered its second generation, the graphics were superior to its closest competition(we know who). This generation was the oddest because there were about 5 other systems out that touted graphics to be their best asset but no one , unfortunately, bought these systems(Panasonic 3DO, Atari Jaguar, Amiga CD32, etc.) so its tough to count them in that generation, again unfortunately.

Then next generation saw the PS1, Saturn and N64. Again the N64 had the best realtime graphics but PS1 lured a lot of oblivious people with commercials that only showed cutscenes(boy, do they still pull this scam).

The next generation was more of a tie between Xbox and Gamecube graphically, but the inferior PS2 won by a long shot in sales.

This generation Nintendo got smart and figured graphics aren't everything(see previous gen.) and took a wild approach by having the smallest graphics update in gaming history. And this is were all the kids and misinformed say "Nintendo never cares about graphics", but this is certainly untrue. I read a blog about a former ATI member who said Nintendo panicked a little when they saw Gears of War in realtime, he claims Nintendo wanted to remodel their graphics chip, but it was too late since Their release date goal was holiday 2006. I cannot confirm this though. But this seems pretty real.

So in short the 3DS graphics did not surprise me. YES, they're amazing, but nothing I didn't expect.

Yes, but there are certain aesthetics that you might not be able to pull off without the requisite technical power (or, at least, are done much better after you've reached a certain level of technical power). The NES had games with good graphics, but certainly there are many games out now that could not have been done on the NES or any previous generation system. If the console can't render the game on the screen, you can't make the game. Better graphics capabilities -> larger possible variety of games /= better quality games.

Yes, but there are certain aesthetics that you might not be able to pull off without the requisite technical power

Actually this is true 99% of the time, and I agree with you. Otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for technical updates. We would all be content with out NES. For example destructible environments and hordes of enemies is something of the new generation that couldn't be done on the Xbox, Gamecube and PS2.

If technical power is completely irrelevant than maybe we should all just shut up and talk about the DS' graphics, cuz hey it can do the same every other platform can do right? What's with all this 3DS fluff?

@Reddlionz yah I hear that to, I really want to go up to them and lecture them on the fact MH3 has great graphics for the wii, and its up to the people who make the games not the systems power (in a sense) like if Nintendo wanted they couldve made wii sports have MH3 graphic, but they didnt. Also Capcom couldve made MM9 and 10 much more then 8-Bit, but they chose to listen to the GAMERS and not the Bias FANBOYS.

Digitaloggery
3DS FC: Otaku1
WiiU: 013017970991Nintendo of Japan
niconico community is full of kawaii!
Must finish my backlagg or at least get close this year
Welcome to my emassary of doom >: }

I guess anyone who cares more about graphics doesn't care if the gameplay is boring or terrible.

Read the rest of the thread. A game with poor aesthetics is almost certainly going to have terrible gameplay. One affects the other.

Yes, but there are certain aesthetics that you might not be able to pull off without the requisite technical power (or, at least, are done much better after you've reached a certain level of technical power). The NES had games with good graphics, but certainly there are many games out now that could not have been done on the NES or any previous generation system. If the console can't render the game on the screen, you can't make the game. Better graphics capabilities -> larger possible variety of games /= better quality games.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was pointing out that when most people talk about "graphics," then they're actually talking about "technical processing," not graphics at all. They're misusing the term entirely, and this thread is full of it.

Graphics is aesthetics, not technical processing. Every console is equally capable of creating an aesthetically pleasing experience - it doesn't matter if it's the NES or the PS3. The difference is the PS3 has a stronger processor, so it capable of more technically complex data. Which is what most people misunderstand as being "graphics."

Of course there are some aesthetic styles that aren't possible on older consoles, because those styles require more advanced hardware, but this doesn't mean that a game on an older console can't have good aesthetics, and therefore be a good game graphically. It's just that the scope is more limited.

And as I've said numerous times before, using the real definition of graphics - aesthetics - a good game absolutely, 100 per cent, requries it to be good. I can count the number of games that have poor, or broken aesthetics, yet still manage to be a good game on one hand.

You really weren't listening to what Waltz was saying were you? To summerize, technical prowess does not equal good graphics. Aesthetics, art style, etc. is what graphics are really all about. It doesn't matter what platform your using, if it doesn't have proper aesthetics, it's not gonna look good. I'm curious now as to why so many people like to associate the two as the same thing? Even I used to do the same thing, but then again, I never really looked up the word to see what it really meant.